Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Rahul And Another on 5 September, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
265 CRA-AS-8-2019
Date of decision: 05.09.2024
STATE OF HARYANA ....Appellant
V/s
RAHUL AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana, for the appellant.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent No.2.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The State of Haryana is before this Court to challenge the
judgement/order dated 28.11.2017 vide which the learned trial Court
acquitted the respondent-accused by extending the benefit of doubt to
them.
Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, Mr.
Shiva Khurmi, Advocate, enrolment No.1453-2015, who is present in
Court, is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of
respondent.
3. The brief facts of this case as alleged in the FIR bearing No.
369 dated 20.07.2016, under Section 379-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, registered at Police Station, Shahbad, (Exhibit P-23) maybe summed
up as thus :
Complainant PW-3-Ravi Dutt, a resident of Village Khaspur,
District Mahendergarh, was employed as a Surveyor for a private company
at the warehouse in Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. On the night of
19.07.2016, at about 9:15 p.m., after finishing dinner, the complainant was
walking outside the gate of the warehouse, when two young men
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
approached him on a black splender motor-cycle. One of them was fat and
the other one was slim. The fat-man suddenly pressed a sharp edged object
against the back of the complainant and threatened him, demanded his
mobile handset and wallet. When the complainant refused, the fat man
forcibly snatched his mobile handset, which had sim No.9050972715,
along with his wallet containing Rs.900/-, his Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card
and ATM Card. The two men then fled from the scene on their
motorcycle. The complainant stated that he could identify the culprits if he
saw them again. Based on these allegations, FIR in question was
registered. After the challan was presented, the accused were charged
under Section 379(B) of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
3. In support of his case, the prosecution examined as many as 6
witnesses including complainant-Ravi Dutt, who deposed as PW-3 and
Investigating Officer-ASI Ashok Kumar, who deposed as PW-6. Besides,
the prosecution also tendered various documents in its evidence including
the documents pertaining to the recoveries allegedly affected from the
respondent-accused and the disclosure statements of both the respondent-
accused.
4. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the
respondent-accused pleaded their innocence.
5. In defence, the respondent-accused neither examined any
witness nor produced any documentary evidence. On the basis of the
material on record and the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges framed against them in the
present FIR by extending the benefit of doubt.
6. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the learned trial
court erred in acquitting the accused by granting them the benefit of doubt
vide impugned judgment dated 28.11.2017, it has been contended that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside for the following reasons:
(i) That the impugned judgment is contrary to law and the facts of the
case as the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of PW-3-
Ravi Dutt, complainant, who specifically testified under oath regarding the
occurrence that took place on 19.07.2016 at about 09:15 p.m. near the gate
of the warehouse in Shahabad.
(ii) That the complaint was lodged promptly with the police on
20.07.2016 and, thus, there was no undue delay that could cast doubt on the
version of the prosecution. Hence, the Court erred in placing undue
emphasis on the alleged delay.
(iii) That the trial Court also erred in holding that the presence of the
complainant near the naka at Shahbad on 21.07.2016 at about 6:30 p.m.
was unnatural. The testimony of the complainant, PW-4 H.C. Naresh
Kumar and PW-6 ASI Ashok Kumar, all of whom testified about the
apprehension of the respondent-accused, was disregarded.
iv. That the trial Court further erred in not properly considering the
identification of the respondent-accused by the complainant. The
complainant specifically identified both the respondent-accused as the
individuals who had threatened him and stolen his wallet and mobile
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
handset. During his testimony, complainant also identified his stolen
articles which were recovered from the respondent-accused.
(v) That the trial Court relied heavily on certain discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses by failing to appreciate that these
inconsistencies were inevitable due to the passage of time and would not in
any manner cast a shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution.
(vi) That the trial Court also erred in acquitting the accused for the
alleged failure to conduct a test identification parade.
7. Learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the State by arguing that
the impugned order comes across as a well reasoned one which does not
warrant any interference. It has been further argued that rather the case of
the prosecution is most improbable; the trial Court rightly took into account
the material discrepancies in deposition of both the complainant as well as
the Investigating Officer which without doubt create a serious dent in the
case of the prosecution.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material placed on record.
9. The key facts of the case are as follows:
PW-3, Ravi Dutt-complainant, testified that on 20.07.2016,
around 4:00 p.m., he reported the incident to the police, who happened to
be just passing by the warehouse where he was employed. Rather that
going to the police station immediately after the occurrence in question,
strangely the complainant waited until the evening of the following day to
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
report the crime. This delay indeed raises serious doubt about the
credibility of the prosecution case. Any reasonable person, especially one
whose belongings such as Aadhar Card, Wallet, ATM Card, Voter ID Card
and mobile handset had been stolen, would promptly approach the police to
lodge an FIR.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.07.2016, at about
6:30 p.m., a police naka was set up at Mandi Shahbad, where PW-3-Ravi
Dutt encountered officers and enquired about his case. However, this
sudden urgency is in sharp contrast with his earlier delay, making his
conduct appear inconsistent and raising doubts about the credibility of his
identification of the respondent-accused at the police check point.
11. Complainant PW-3-Ravi Dutt's testimony is further
undermined by inconsistencies. He could not recall details such as the dates
of signing documents, the presence of witnesses or whether the accused
wore helmets during the alleged chase. These lapses in memory suggest
that he may not have been at the scene during key moments, casting further
doubt on the case of the prosecution particularly on his identification of the
respondent-accused.
12. Furthermore and pertinently, there are also significant
contradictions in the testimonies of the other key witnesses regarding the
apprehension of the respondent-accused. PW-3 Ravi Dutt, PW-4 H.C.
Naresh Kumar and PW-6 ASI Ashok Kumar, each came varying accounts
of how the respondent-accused were stopped and arrested which severely
undermines the case of the prosecution.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117396
13. Additionally, despite living at the warehouse and having a
security guard on duty, PW-3 Ravi Dutt, did not immediately report the
incident to the guard or even his Manager. This inexplicable delay in
informing those close to him further weakens the narrative of the
prosecution.
14. In addition, the absence of a test identification parade is a
major flaw. While PW-3 identified the respondent-accused in Court, this
identification is unreliable without a test identification parade, particularly
since his initial statement did not provide any identifying details of the
suspects. The short duration of the crime also makes it unlikely that he
could have accurately identified the suspects days later. Additionally, there
is a significant discrepancy regarding the colour of the recovered mobile
handset which further undermines the credibility of the evidence led.
Furthermore, even the charge under Section 379-B of the IPC (snatching
with hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of hurt) is not substantiated as PW-3
Ravi Dutt did not claim that the accused inflicted any injuries on his
person. Even if the prosecution's evidence is accepted, the evidence does
not support the charge under Section 379-B of the IPC. Hence as a sequel
to the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant appeal and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
September 05, 2024
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
